₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
You're treating the direction of worship as though it were the object of worship. Those are not the same thing.

The Kaaba is the qiblah, the direction Muslims face. Allah is the One worshipped. Muslims do not believe the Kaaba or the Black Stone is Allah, nor that Allah is physically housed inside either.

Since you're accusing Muslims of idolatry, the burden is to show that Muslims actually direct worship to the stone or the Kaaba. Islam's own sources identify the object of worship as Allah says, Worship Me (Qur'an 20:14), while the Kaaba is appointed as the direction of prayer (2:144). If the charge is muslims worship the stone, Islamic sources do not instruct Muslims to worship it.

Umar makes the distinction explicit. He said of the Black Stone that I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. He kissed it because he saw the Prophet pbuh kiss it, not because he believed it was a deity (Sahih al-Bukhari 1597). Even reports about reward or atonement connected with touching it don't change this. Allah is the One who forgives and rewards, and the Stone has no independent power to forgive, save, harm, or benefit.

Now distinguish three things: facing an object, honoring it, and worshipping it. You have established the first, and perhaps the second. You still have to establish the third.

Your own Bible gives examples. Daniel prayed toward Jerusalem (Daniel 6:10). Solomon prayed toward the Temple while saying even the highest heaven cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27-30). Joshua fell on his face before the Ark (Joshua 7:6). If you say Joshua was worshipping God while prostrating before a sacred object, you've conceded the distinction that prostration before a sacred object doesn't make that object the recipient of worship. Or do you say Joshua worshipped the ark?

If you answer that Joshua was legitimate because God commanded the Ark, then the test is divine command, not whether an object is involved, and your stone argument is gone. What remains is whether Muhammad was authorized, which is a different debate and the one you haven't made.

Your texts don't carry the weight you put on them. Leviticus 26:1 bans making an idol or sacred stone and bowing down to it, and Joshua at the Ark shows that bowing before a sacred object isn't banned in itself. Deuteronomy 16:22 bans setting up a sacred pillar, and Exodus 34:13 orders the destruction of the Canaanites' pillars, which belonged to a rival cult. Neither says every way of honoring something God appointed is idolatry, or the same Torah wouldn't command the Ark and the cherubim.

If you add that the Kaaba was a pagan site, that is history, not what Muslims worship now. The Bible has idols placed inside the Temple itself (2 Kings 21:4-7), and nobody concludes the Temple was pagan afterward. What matters is whom the act is directed to today.

So the question isn't, Did Muslims bow while facing something sacred? Obviously they did. It's Did they bow to that thing as a god?

Show me where Muslims are instructed to worship the Stone as a deity, address it in prayer, ask it for forgiveness or salvation, or attribute independent divine power to it. If you can't, you've shown orientation and perhaps veneration, but you have not demonstrated idolatry.

We are just going around in circle now.

I already told u the cannanites don't worship sacred stones, they worship Asherah by bowing before a stone.

But God explicitly told them to destroy any sacred stone even though cannanites don't worship them

Then God went ahead to instruct the Israelites never to erect a sacred stone in his name because he hates it.
This is one that put the nail in coffin when it comes to venerating the scared stone.

God said don't set up any sacred stone in my name. Don't do it. He hates it.

Israelites never venerate or honour any sacred stone in the name of the LORD anywhere in the bible.
There is no reference anywhere in the bible that a stone is considered sacred.
God banned Israelites from doing such.

It's not even about bowing before the sacred stone. It's about don't build it at all and associate it with me.

Joshua didn't build a sacred stone, Solomon didn't build a sacred stone, Jacob didn't build a sacred stone. No prophet of God built a sacred stone.

The first prophet of God to set up a sacred stone and associate it with God is Muhammed. That's a strange theology. And it shows he's a false prophet.


The question is why do Muslims need a sacred stone to worship Allah. Why? Something God forbids because he hates it.

And u keep projecting the hadith that says the sacred stone is nothing. Why don't u address hadiths that expressly shows the sacred stone has some level of deification to it like medium of forgiving sins, becoming a person on judgment Day, was once white then turned black.

We all know what we doing but I will leave u with the words of Jeremiah.

22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you.

Obedience is better than rituals or sacrifice.

doffman:
Guy ? Seriously is like you are avoiding the truth. Yiu don’t have any point again 🤣.

He has told you that facing a direction of a place to worship is not idolatery .

He said your Bible also reported a case where Daniel was facing Jerusalem during worshipping . Stop disgracing yourself nah .🤣

Everyone and evidence based research also know that Muslim do not bow to stone or worship anything apart from Allah .

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:144) explains this directional change: "So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]."

Surah Al-Anbiya (21:98): "Indeed, you [disbelievers] and what you worship other than Allah are the fuel of Hell. You will be coming to it.


Now that we have given you proof that Muslims do not worship stone or anything apart from Allah , now, if you disagree , then show us where Allah said Muslim should worship stone oooo ?

Shioor , guy go sit down in one corner joor .

Na u guys even worshiped sculpture 🤣

U worship facing a house that has a sacred stone. U now facing the sacred stone.

The stone is nothing but will ask Allah to forgive sins of those who kissed it dearly.

Stone is not special but Muslims will kill themselves to kiss the stone.

People u see why God said do not associate my name with any sacred stone. because he knows people will eventually build legend and myth around such stones.

God told Moses do not bow before a sacred stone. Muslims argue they don't bow to a sacred stone but they venerate it to highest heavens.

Islam as a religion is not in continuity with religion of previous prophets.

It's a strange and man made religion. Muhammed led people astray by telling them to worship God in a strange way. He's a false prophet.

Deuteronomy 13
If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “ and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.


Any prophet that tells people to bow before a sacred stone is a false prophet. God expressly banned bowing before a sacred stone.

doffman:
Na you have issue with comprehension.
He was reflecting on his ignorance during pre Islamic era .

Read again :

During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.


Omo, once you are Christian , you can never talk straight ahaaa

Shior

So the story is true. A monkey commited adultery and other monkeys were stoning him. Then this Muslim joined them

How did he know the monkey was being stoned for adultery. Who told him? The monkeys?

See another one. Doffman wantse.to become a Muslim so I can start believing such ludicrous statements.

Your prophet told u to eat with the right hand because Satan eats with the left hand.
Doffman is this true?
What about those who are left handed, they should be forced to eat with the right hand on top say wetin.

Doffman if I become a Muslim and left handed, will I start eating with my right hand something I'm not used to?

Or is this one pre Islamic too

doffman:
🤣🤣🤣 Omo , why you unbelievers always have difficult to answer simple question.

Must you tell story ahaahhh .

Let me give you example :

Who is my God

Allah is my God

Do you worship Allah ,

Yes , I worshipped him only .

As you can see , I answer you straight forward without any story

Now, be proud of your God and answer me clearly :


Who is your God ?

Do you worship Jesus ? Yes or no




Your question :

If Allah has a son, should the son of Allah be worshipped?

I have answered you several times in the past 🤣

Allah does not have son and no any son can be worshipped

A son that doesn’t owned by God does not exist and he did not ask us to worship any son or any person except him .

Surah Al-Mu'minun (23:91):"Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity [other than Him]."

This verse alone has finished you .


You can see how I answered you , Oya answer my own question nah ; no story o

Who is my God? My God is the Father.

It is only him I worship. All worship are directed to him

I pray only to the Father. All prayers are directed to him.

Now don't be ashamed of your Quran. There's a Quranic verse that directly answer my question.

Why are u ashamed of that verse? Why

If Allah has a son, should the son of Allah be worshipped. Yes or No.

I don't want any explanation. Just answer yes or No.
If Allah has a son, should the son of Allah be worshipped.

Kalashnikov49:
They have already started attacking him...

They believe that he is taking away their members from RCCG and other Yahoo GO, spots.

God has Blessed the man. .and absolutely NOTHING can stop the grace of God in his life.

See tribal ignorance in display.
Pastor Jerry runs a non denominational ministry. U can be member of rccg, Catholic, winners or any other denomination and still be a member of Pastor Jerry NSSPD.

Carry your tribal wahala go somewhere else.

honesttalk21:
Oh my! I answered your yes-or-no question as no. Muslims prostrate to Allah toward the Kaaba, a building, and the
stone is one piece set into it that most of them never see. So the argument I created is the one you asked me, and you've now skipped my question three times: where is a Muslim told to prostrate to the Stone?

Your rule, that honouring a stone is banned because God said not to erect one, proves too much. Psalm 99:5 tells Israel to worship at God's footstool. Jacob set up and anointed a stone pillar at Bethel, and Joshua set up a great stone by the sanctuary. Jews kiss the Western Wall and Christians kiss the stone of Anointing. If honouring stone is abomination, the Bible and your own pilgrims are in the dock with me.

You say Israel could venerate the Temple because God enters creation. But Solomon said the highest heaven can't contain God, much less this house (1 Kings 8:27). Your reason concedes the real point that the test is whom the act is addressed to, not whether an object is involved. Muslims believe God isn't in the Kaaba, which is the stricter position you say we should hold.

Pagans did it first proves nothing either, since pagans had altars, sacrifices, and temples, and so does the Torah. And obedience is better than sacrifice is 1 Samuel 15, about Saul, not stones, so who is committing the exact-word fallacy? You ask Moses or Muhammad pbuh? By your logic it's also Moses or the Psalms.

if no one told u to prostate before a stone, then why do u prostate b4 a stone

why do u prostate before a house that has a sacred stone?

worship at the Lord's footstool...
is that not God's throne, who is seated on the throne?? abeg this one no be talk
did Joshua or Jacob bow before the stone? if not u no get talk. stick to the topic. if joshua and Jacob goes back to same stone or always erect stone anytime they worship God, then we can confirm association of stone with worship amongst the patriach.

I dont care what pilgrims do, people are free to worship what they fancy. The bible is the standard.


Dont tell me u dont know God dwells inside the holies of holies. because I would be so dissapinted in u if u deny it

Exodus 40
34 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. 35 And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

Numbers 7
89 When Moses entered the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard the voice speaking to him from between the two cherubim above the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant law. In this way the Lord spoke to him.

If God dwells in the kabba, then its justifiable for Muslims to bow before it because Israelites did same. u get it now.

Go and read Jeremiah and books of the prophets. God repeated he desires obedience and not sacrifice. He even said he didn't commanded Israelites to sacrifice but to listen when he brought them out of Egypt

Jeremiah 7
22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you.

God wants obedience and not rituals or sacrifice. He wants to be obeyed the way he wants. rituals and sacrifice is secondary to God, primary thing is obedience.

Now back to obedience, why do muslims disobey God by bowing before a stone. u may deny it but actions speak louder than words.

doffman:
Dey play . No be you worship Jesus instead of God .

Let me kuku exposed you as I exposed your colleagues :

Who is your God ?

Do you worship Jesus ? Yes or no


Answer that and let me finish you once and for all . This time I will not allow you to run away again .

I already answered this question and I will answer it again using my scriptures.

Daniel 7
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Now answer my own question, I asked u before but u failed to answer.

If Allah has a son, should the son of Allah be worshipped?
Now use your own scripture to answer the question. I dont want your opinion

doffman:
🤣🤣 they said during pre Islamic period ahaaa.

This one no know anything self

Be like say u no go school.

I'm asking is that story true. Pre Islamic, Islamic or post Islamic.
Is the story true
That a Muslims saw monkeys throwing stones at a monkey who commited adultery.
Is it a true story?
If it's not a true story, then why is it in the hadith.
That's my question

honesttalk21:
That draft makes the right argument, but the format works against you. Seven questions in a row lets SIRTee15 answer the easiest and ignore the rest, and he's already accused you of gymnastics and dodging. The first question ("correct?" also asks him to confirm what he already said, and he never got an answer to his "which is worse" question, so he'll say you evaded it again.

U created an argument I never raised. My argument is bowing before a stone. Why Muslims bow before a stone when God in the Torah said Moses should never bow before a stone.
Besides kissing and touching a stone is part of honoring a stone. God already banned such practices by saying do not erect a stone in my name. Looking for literal words like kissing and touching is an attempt to hide behind one finger and u are simply commiting exact word fallacy.

honesttalk21:
Making the points as statements and asking only the one question he can't dodge is stronger.

You say Israel bowed to God, not to the Temple, so an act performed toward a sacred object can be worship of God. That means facing, bowing, or touching an object doesn't by itself make the object the thing worshipped. You add that God's glory dwelt in the Temple, but that only moves the question to authorization.

Israelites can say their temple is sacred because they beleive God can enter creation. U guys don't beleive in that at all.
Muslims should be stricter when it comes to bowing to any object because they don't beleive God can be inside creation or be inside any object.
Then why are Muslims bowing before a house when the reason that is done in the old testament is because they beleive God lives there.
This shows the theology of lslam is not a continuity of ancient prophet belief system.
Besides the kabba is well known to be a pagan house pre Islamic with many idols. Pagans used to circumbulate the kabba in a ritualistic fashion. This is an historical fact and Muslims continuation of such practice raises a lot of questions on how much pagan practice Muhammed incorporated into Islam.

honesttalk21:
Muslims hold that they were commanded to face the Kaaba (Qur'an 2:144) and that prostration is to Allah alone.

That's exactly the crux of the matter. How can God tell a prophet never to bow to a stone then tell another prophet that he should bow before a stone.
That's a contradiction. Who is lying.
Moses or Muhammed.

honesttalk21:
You ask which is worse between bowing to a stone as worship and kissing it, which is why the issue is whom the act is directed to. So show me where a Muslim is instructed to prostrate to the Stone, and not to Allah? Without that, you've shown a prescribed ritual involving a sacred object, not worship of the object.

Obedience is better than sacrifice.
Cannanites were no different, they simply were prostrating before a sacred stone not worshipping it.
But God still made it clear never to bow before a stone.
God further proscribed erecting any form of sacred stone for him. He hates it.
Muslim built a house for a sacred stone and then bows before it. And u are here arguing that doesn't run contrary to Torah instruction.
If u are familiar with the tanakh, u will know what God hates most is people using rituals and sacrifice as an alternative to obeying him.
Obedience to God is non negotiable. U can't say u submit to God yet disobey his commandments. It never ends well.

honesttalk21:
Tirmidhi 959 (graded hasan) says touching the two corners atones for sins. I don't evade it however Allah forgives, and He attaches reward to a prescribed act. Umar said I know you are a stone; you can neither harm nor benefit. Had I not seen the Prophet kiss you, I would not kiss you (Bukhari 1597, Muslim 1270).

Why do you pretend to not know Asherah was a goddess with prophets (1 Kings 18:19), and Josiah burned her object (2 Kings 23:6)? Deliberate to appear as haven made superior argument? You know it is distinct from pillars (Deut 16:21-22; Ex 34:13). Deut 16:22 and Lev 26:1 forbid setting up pillars for worship, and Lev 26:1 ties the ban to bowing down to them. Neither forbids touching or kissing a stone. Tell me I am wrong. Muslims prostrate to Allah facing the Kaaba, not the Stone. You say no prophet directed prayer toward a sacred place, in apparent ignorance that Solomon prayed toward the Temple (1 Kings 8:44) and Psalm 138:2 speaks of bowing toward it. Joshua 24:27 gives a stone a witness role, so testimony isn't divinity, and Jacob anointed a pillar at Bethel (Gen 28:18-19).

On kiss whatever touched it, we have Muslim 1275 record the Prophet kissing his staff after touching the Stone, which he did while riding because of the crowd. It was one recorded act, not a ruling that anything touched to the Stone counts. Cite your hadith and its grading. Even if accepted, the white-to-black report doesn't make it a deity.

You've shown ritual status, touching and expiation. You haven't shown worship. That is the missing step. The Stone is venerated; Allah alone is worshipped.

Let's stay with unhindered facts otherwise this is unneeded amusement for you.

Which is worse, bowing to a stone or kissing it or touching it.
Which signifies most abomination.
Which do u think should be considered a sin in the sight of God. Bowing to a stone, touching a stone or kissing a stone.

Israel bow to the temple because the shikineh glory of God physically dwells within the temple.
The glory of God descended into the temple and the Israelites led by Solomon bowed to God whose glory dwells in the temple.

So bringing that up shows ignorance of theology.

God clearly reiterate 3 times in the Torah, do not bow to a stone. It doesn't matter if u it's a means of worshipping God.

Instead of dealing with that, u asking me to show u where God says do not touch or kiss a stone.

Which is worse, bowing before a stone or kissing it?

honesttalk21:
No. Muslims bow to Allah, facing the Kaaba. Facing a direction isn't worshipping what's in or on it (Daniel faced Jerusalem, Dan 6:10).
Exodus 34:13 dodges my question: where do Deut 16:22 or Lev 26:1 forbid touching or kissing a stone? It targets Canaan's pagan pillars; Joshua set one up near the sanctuary (Josh 24:26).
Where is it stated that facing = bowing to the Stone, or that Canaan's order binds Muslims?

It's the same thing. The Canaanites worship Asherah by bowing before a sacred stone.
Cannanites set up sacred stones n venerate those stones when worshipping Asherah.

Exact same thing u do, u guys believe touching the stones forgive your sins, the stones will speak for u on judgement Day. The black stone is not an ordinary stone according to Islamic theology. It was initially white then turned black due to sin of the people, the stone will become personified on judgement Day n accuse those who kissed it not sincerely.
Even your prophet said those who can't kiss the stone should kiss whatever item touched the stone and it will be like the Muslim touched the stone.

Above is no different from cannanites worship of Asherah.
All your examples cannot be compared because no prophet told the people they must bow to Jerusalem when praying.
Joshua did not bow to any pillar when worshipping God.

Muslims bow to a stone when worshipping Allah. Something God says he hates.

honesttalk21:
You are overreaching to ask questions over unrelated issues. Deuteronomy 16:22 says not to erect a sacred stone; it does not say, never touch or kiss a stone or does it now?
Leviticus 26:1 forbids bowing before a carved/sacred stone, that is an idolatrous object. Muslims do not worship the Black Stone. ʿUmar explicitly said you are only a stone; you can neither benefit nor harm.
Perhaps you actually have where the opposite is said? He kissed it only because he saw the Prophet pbuh do so.

So the argument “Muslims kiss a stone, therefore they worship it” simply does not follow. The Qur'an directs the pilgrimage to Allah, not the Stone.

Where does your cited verse actually say that every stone touched or kissed is forbidden? Do exactly answer please.

U guys do more than kiss or touch the stone. U guys bow before it.
Do u guys bow before the black stone? Yes or No.

In exodus 34 God said u should destroy any sacred stone u meet in the land. Not touch it or kiss it...destroy it.

Obedience is better than sacrifice. U don't submit to God in your way but his own way.

honesttalk21:
Definitely you know better that the comparison just doesn’t hold up. Leviticus 26:1 is pretty clear about forbidding the worship of images and stones, but the hadith in question? It’s Abu Rajaʾ talking about pre-Islamic stone worship, not Muhammad pbuh giving any order. Muslims don’t see the black stone as an object of worship itself. Walking around the Kaaba is directed at God, plain and simple. ʿUmar even spelled it out that the stone can’t help you or hurt you.

Pls spare us the gymnastics.
The bible did not restrict abomination related to stone to only worship. The instruction from God didn't even mention worship.

It says do not bow to stone. Simple as that. Obedience is better than sacrifice. All this excuse that we don't worship stone we only honour it makes no sense.
God clearly said don't associate my name with any sacred stone because I hate it.
What's there not to understand!!!!

Deuteronomy 16
22and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the Lord your God hates.

Why do Muslims do what the Lord God hates Why

dofman:
🤣🤣🤣🤣 my runaway customer .

The truth I show you wey made you run away .

You have come here from your WhatsApp group.

Alll you people have been defeated o

TRUTH KE!!!!

so u still bow that to that black stone despite all the warning I gave u?

Leviticus 26
1 “‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.

WHO IS LYING, MOSES OR MUHAMMED ?

dofman:
O ye unbelievers ! 🤣

When will you repent ?

repent into what

repent so I can believe this?

dofman:
So you don’t write two post again ? 🤣🤣 she don tire 🤣🤣

I told you nah , you will learn and now you are learning .
Pele

Let me ask u a genuine question.

If a man known to have unusual association with omode obinrin opens a church, what will u think of me if I tell u I attend his church.

Layi4real:
you are a Christian so I have the right to believe Ur book. I'm a Muslim I have the right to believe in my book. but mind you two truth can coexist.

What I'm certain of is that if we decide to be logical and leave religion aside the Trinity and divinity doesn't make sense. saying God is a man is just like saying yes Buddha can also be God, saying Zeus and Osiris Nd others are God. u ve created a room for a human God Nd it's idolatry

ok do u want us to have this argument. Let's leave our books aside and see if Jesus is divine or not.

Remember, no reference to New testament or Quran. Let's see if historical Jesus is divine or not

honesttalk21:
Your title says lecture, not the Quran. If scripture owes us science, your Bible fails in bats as birds, hares chewing cud, four-legged insects. Sure you posted in the appropriate section? Years on this forum, you know where to complain. Dahmie had to point it out.

why is it in the christian section. The topic is for muslims and I opened it in muslim section. why was it moved here. This thread benefit no one but muslims.

honesttalk21:
@SIRTee15 Galen taught two seeds, placing female semen in the ovaries. Qur'an 76:2 says nutfah amshāj, nothing about Galen, ovaries, or an ovum, and al-Ṭabarī/Ibn Kathīr read it as male and female fluids mixing, so copied Galen has you overreaching. After ovulation, the oocyte itself travels in fluid, fimbriae sweep it into the tube, cilia carry it to the ampulla, where sperm capacitate and meet it; even in IVF, fertilization still needs oocyte, sperm, and fluid medium, sperm alone produces nothing. The Quran isn't a medical textbook, so show me your Bible's equivalent on oocyte transport or capacitation.

Your God is the one giving embryology lecture in the Quran. My God never told us he's a lecturer or tells us he intends to use the scripture as embryology handout.

Pls can u explain why my thread was removed away from Muslim section.
I don't have a problem if u guys are opposed to Islamic criticism but I expect the same treatment be extended to Muslims who open Christian threads

Qasim6:
Bro, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you have been chasing shadows.
.

Shadows bawo. Abi no be u carry tafsir come help Quran.

Qasim6:
The word that is being translated as sperm in those verses does not literally mean sperm. The word is nutfah, nataph in Hebrew; it literally means just a tiny quantity of liquid/fluid.
Semen o , sperm o. Doesn't matter. The question is show me the ovary.

[quote author=Qasim6 post=140742973]Yes, He was describing complex cosmological and geological concepts using language and observable phenomena that could be understood by 7th-century Arabs, and not Einstein's theory or Newton's laws.
.

Indeed, the author of the Quran that thought stars are missiles thrown at the devil so that he can't eavesdrop into heaven.
Qasim I'm 100% sure deep down in within your heart, u know God didn't write the Quran.
U know the author of the Quran is not God, u just doing strong head.

Qasim6:
Qur'an 76:2 uses mixed fluids which the Muslims have always understood as mixture of both the male and female fluids, there are narrations where the prophet himself said the male and the female fluids determine the sex and physical traits of a child, so I don't understand why you are hell bent on forcing the Aristotle theory of only the sperm is responsible for fetal development on the Qur'an.

.[/quote]Yeah, Muslims interpreted as a female fluid driping from the rib.
Say the truth, if u be lecturer, u no go fail those Muslims??
Well I want to know who removed my topic from Islamic question?
Are u guys now saying criticism of Quran devoid of insult will not be entertained here anymore ?

jaephoenix:
Lol you now bring up lies to cover your fuckups?
Where was i disoriented? At least now you agree I have created threads about how useless your bible is and you couldn't make any explanations despite the thread making more than 40 pages

All your irrational questions were convincingly answered. But of course u looking for way out until u got dazed and confused.

jaephoenix:
I have opened a topic about the errors and lies in the bible,years ago. You contributed to that thread but was as usual talking rubbish,and now,you are pretending I haven't made any thread about how useless your bible is. Even the points I made now about your bible,you couldn't counter them
Loo at the thread
https://www.nairaland.com/7659505/book-bible-gaffes

The thread where u became so dazed u became confused and disoriented, didn't know who is who anymore.
U even started talking rubbish arguing advanced stage 4 cancer can go into remission without any form of treatment. I hope this is not how u mange your patients OR u were just desperate to discredit the bible u were willing to discredit medicine itself.

Qasim6:
Your initial submission was that the author assumes only sperm initiates life and begins the process of fetal development, but you are wrong.
The author is very much aware that both the man and the woman bring forth substances that mix together to begin the process of fetal development (Qur'an 76:2), unlike Aristotelian embryology, which opines that the father's semen contains the entire seed of the child while the mother's womb only acts as a vessel.

No, the author of the Quran NEVER MENTIONED the fluid comes from woman. Instead it gives a detailed explanation of fetus being from FROM ONLY THE SPERM. NO MENTION OF THE WOMAN.

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqah: clot of blood or leech) ; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah: chewed like substance/piece of meat); then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Qur'an 23:14

We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot (alaqah), then out of a morsel of flesh (mudghah), partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes......
Qur'an 22:5


THIS IS WHAT THE AUTHOR OF THE QURAN MENTIONED HIMSELF WITHOUT ANY ADDITIVE. HE MADE NO MENTION OF ANY CONTRIBUTION FROM THE WOMAN- THIS IS THE ARISTOTLE THEORY!!!

As we can see, the author of the Quran is telling us how he forms the fetus and for strange reasons, didn't mention the ovum. The ovum is absent. According to the quran, SPERM BECOMES EMBRYO WITHOUT THE OVUM!!!!!

The verse u brought made no mention of any fluid coming from the woman. It only mentions mixed of fluid which of course is an ambiguous statement

Qasim6:
The content of the ovum is still cytoplasm, which is best described as a semi-fluid, jelly-like substance. You wouldn't expect the Qur'an, whose immediate recipients were 7th-century Arabs, to be using microscopic terms rather than observable phenomena.

BUT ACCORDING TO U GUYS HE WAS DESCRIBING COMPLEX COSMOLOGY AND GEOLOGICAL CONCEPT IN THE QURAN to 7th century arabs, IS IT NOT THE SAME BUNCH OF ILLITERATE.
don't u think mentioning the more important female egg will help arabs understand infertility issues better. What's their business with constellation of stars billions of miles away compared to telling arabs about the female egg.

Qasim6:
And no, we are not speaking for the author of the Qur'an. There are narrations where the Prophet himself mentioned that both the man's and the woman's fluids are responsible for the sex of the child and even the physical traits of the child. Even Abdullah ibn Abbas, who was the cousin of the Prophet and the greatest mufassir, explained nutfah amshaj in Q 76:2 as a mixture of both the man's and the woman's fluid.

yes u are.
According to u guys, the author of the Quran is different from the tafsir, and u confirmed this with me in the past when u reject a tafsir narration as false.
and even the explanation in the tafsir is the 2 seed theory of Galen when he said its the fluid from the woman and the man that makes the fetus. He described the fluid as thin and yellow secreted by the body not from the ovary.

And let's pretend as if we don't know the same tafsir mentioned the so called female fluid comes from the sternum
u go fear mental gymnastics.
Galen was wrong and so is the tafsir.

tafsir of Quran 86.5-7
Let people then consider what they were created from! They were˺ created from a spurting fluid, stemming from between the backbone and the ribcage.

Asrar - Kashf Al-Asrar tafsir
He was created of gushing water, emerging from between the loins and the chest.
When the human individual was created, he was created from water thrown and spilled, a water that came forth from the back of the man and from the bones within the woman's breast.


Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir tafsir
(He is created from a water gushing forth.) meaning, the sexual fluid that comes out bursting forth from the man and the woman. Thus, the child is produced from both of them by the permission of Allah.

Due to this Allah says, (Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest.

Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said,
(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).'' Concerning Allah's statement.


So according to the "coming to the rescue tafsir", the yellow and thin female fluid is from the rib!!!!!!
attempting to rescue the author of the quran with the tafsir will only make things worse for him not better.
I repeat, allow the author of the Quran speak for himself, don't make things worse for him.

Why is the ovary or female egg not mentioned in the Quran, pls fellow muslims answer the question.

Qasim6:
You missed Qur'an 76:2 that uses (نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ) mixed fluid to describe what man is made from.

And there are narrations where the prophet described the woman fluid as thin and yellow.

The egg is not a fluid, u can practically hold it. Doctors hold the egg with forceps and move it around during IVF. IT'S NOT A FLUID. saying the egg is a fluid is bad description and shows profound knowledge gap

Qasim6:
You missed Qur'an 76:2 that uses (نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ) mixed fluid to describe what man is made from.

And there are narrations where the prophet described the woman fluid as thin and yellow.

Quran 76.2
˹For˺ indeed, We ˹alone˺ created humans from a drop of mixed fluids, ˹in order˺ to test them, so We made them hear and see.

My friend, ovum is not a fluid and its not thin. its a spherical structure with a firm to solid exterior and a jelly interior.


Your tafsir scholars were reproducing what ancient physicians like Galen believe to be the female semen- yellow and thin fluid while the man is thicker and white.

This should not be difficult, let's stop speaking for the author of the quran. semen and ovary contribute 50:50 to the creation of a fetus. we don't need all this cryptic interpretation for something that is sooo common knowledge.

This is about the failure to mention female egg in the Quran.
Why did the all knowing God forget to mention the ovary in his extensive embryology lecture in the Quran.

jaephoenix:
I'm not a muslim,which you know. And I'm not an apologist.
The bible contains many scientific and historical errors so why are you picking on Islam when your own religion is a cesspit of confusion and misinformation
The bible talks about a global flood but there is no scientific evidence of it.
It says sun and moon stood still. No evidence
Says people resurrected en masse when Jesus died. No evidence
Leviticus 11:19 lists bats among birds ("flying creeping things", which conflicts with modern biological classification as mammals.Ruminant Designation for Hares and Conies: Leviticus 11:5–6 states that hares and rock badgers "chew the cud" but do not have divided hooves, though they are not actually ruminants.Four-Legged Insects: Leviticus 11:20–23 refers to flying insects that walk on all fours, ignoring the six-legged anatomy characteristic of insects (though some interpretations suggest a distinction for walking versus hopping limbs).
I can go on and on but I'm tired

Since u are not a Muslim, I don't understand your headache with the Quran. Let Muslims come here to defend their Quran which is the verbatim word of God.

If u have a problem with the bible, open another thread for that.

Quran is known to cover details about embryology and fetal development. It confirms the process starts with a drop of semen becoming a lump (zygote) multiple times.

He created you (all) from a single Person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?
Qur'an 39:6

O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot (alaqah), then out of a morsel of flesh (mudghah), partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much). And (further), thou seest the earth barren and lifeless, but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).
Qur'an 22:5

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqah: clot of blood or leech) ; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah: chewed like substance/piece of meat); then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Qur'an 23:14


But what is alarmingly missing in the Quranic embryology lecture is the absence of the female egg called ovum. Quran never mentioned the ovary or the female egg in its entire embryology lecture.
This is not something that should be swept under the carpet but critically examined to know why such crucial detail is missing from a book written by an all knowing God.

A fetus is only formed when the sperm unites with the ovum- that is the beginning of Life and fetal formation. The sperm alone cannot achieve it. The koran assumes the only sperm initiates Life and begins the process of fetal development, this is definitely wrong.

This throws up the question does the author of the Quran has serious knowledge gap? Is he actually omniscient as Muslims claim.

Maybe the answer is not as difficult as we think. In the 7th century ancient world when the Quran was written, nobody knew anything about the ovary or ovum. Ancient physicians believe the sperm from the man is the only thing needed to form a fetus. The womb is only considered an incubator. They knew nothing about the female egg.

Maybe the author of the Quran didn't know because people around him didn't know too. Quran after all is simply a reflection of the obvious knowledge gap around it.

N.B- I do not consider this a reason to believe Islam a false religion, it only shows the author of the Quran is not all knowing.

LordReed:
It bothers me because the people prejudiced against him are offering up unnecessary harm. It is their actions that would be immoral not his tattoos.

Moral fibre is borne by conscious thinking beings, religious or otherwise. I know for us as humans we are the ones making moral judgement calls and all evidence points to it. You on the otherhand think an external agency is involved but can present nothing valid to support such a claim.

So u will join society in discriminating against him even when u know he's harmless and has good morals!!!!!

When we say atheism breeds relative morality, u prove get angry. If your morality is clear cut objective, u would know what is good is good and what is bad is bad. It doesn't matter what the society thinks. U stand for the truth.

would u return to slave to his cruel masters even when u know slavery is very wrong.

In the slavery era, it was a very serious crime for a free man to help a slave escape. U could be jailed for it. But lots of free people still do it despite the risk because they knew it was the right thing and the law was wrong.
Eventually they were vindicated and now we look back and realise the immoral ones were the slave owners not the ones helping slaves to escape.

triplechoice:
.No. You're the one caught in a logical loop of your own making . And that's why you keep shifting the goalpost because you can't provide evidence for your original claim that all morality comes from God. Your latest retreat is "moral fibre established by religious belief" But what exactly is this religious belief? You can't answer because answering would end the debate.

Benefitting from something in religion doesn't mean it came from God. And I already told you that there are non -theistic religion. We benefit from Greek philosophy and Arabic mathematics without believing in Jupiter, Athena or Allah. Or do you believe in Allah since you benefit from the mathematics the Islamic world gave us?If you don't, then by your own logic you're an hypocrite since you reject Allah and Islam.

The atheist or agnostic hasn't rejected everything religion has produced. We reject or not convinced that gods authored the moral codes in religion.. Everything else religion has produced, its art, philosophy or its moral wisdom, we can take on its own merits, the same way we take Greek philosophy or Arabic mathematics. Until you understand that, you'll keep demanding that we justify your own belief for you. And that makes no sense.

Guy u already admit that your moral fibre comes from religious belief. Thus, nothing more to discuss with u.

Pls go back and read my initial post. I'm not here to prove evidence of God nor to show u the biblical morality is the best.

All I'm here to show is that atheism on its own has no objective morality to stand on except if they borrow from religious belief.

U guys know the truth, a society or family needs a structured objective morality to function and progress. And as far as I can see that comes from religious belief whose source comes from a higher power or alternative reality.

Otherwise morality becomes relative which is what has become of western world when they embrace liberal secularism as the source of their morality which eventually leads to moral decadence.

U are the one arguing about evidence of God and I deliberately ignored u because I'm not here to play that game.

If u want evidence for God, open a new topic and we will discuss it. Thanks.